3sigma

Perhaps a better question would have been, “Is it more likely you are a racist if you are Republican than if you are a Democrat or Independent?” or “Are a greater percentage of Republicans racists than are Democrats or Independents?” or “Are racists more likely to be Republicans rather than Democrats or Independents?” Just based on casual observation, it appears to me that conservatives in general are more likely to be racist, anti-gay, xenophobic, bigoted, anti-science and to hold stronger and more extreme religious beliefs than liberals, but hey, maybe I’m completely wrong about that.

I voted "honey boo boo don't care", not having any idea what a "honey boo boo" is but liking how it sounds, because my answer is not there. I would say "If you are a republican, you are probably a racist swine, but there is a very slim probability you aren't".

Screwtape Sr has become a repub over the last 10 years. He has also manifested outrageous racism which I had never seen in him before. He's said shit I would actually not post here. Correlation? Yes. Causation? Dunno.

The repub party has built its whole electoral strategy on racism: the [wiki]southern strategy[/wiki].

Quote

"The truth is that there was very little that was subconscious about the G.O.P.'s relentless appeal to racist whites. Tired of losing elections, it saw an opportunity to renew itself by opening its arms wide to white voters who could never forgive the Democratic Party for its support of civil rights and voting rights for blacks."

As a side note, Lee Atwater was an absolutely horrible human being. Karl Rove is worse.

I voted "honey boo boo don't care", not having any idea what a "honey boo boo" is but liking how it sounds, because my answer is not there.

Don't look it up. You lose 10 IQ points for actually knowing what honey boo boo is. I lost 20 for watching an episode that my wife made me sit through, which wasn't good for me, because I don't have many points to lose. By the end of the show, I was dipping pork rinds in liquid cheese and shitting on myself without caring about the smell. Yes, it's that bad.

No. But it does seem that if you are a racist, you're probably a Republican. What is it about the Republican party that makes it so attractive to bigots? Racist bigots, sexist bigots, anti-gay bigots, religious bigots, all seem to be drawn to it like bugs to a street light.

Quote

1. according to some

Who are these "some"? Do you have a citation of someone actually claiming that, or is it that it's easier to convince yourself that the detractors are just stereotyping than to accept that the Republican party has a rather obvious bigotry problem?

No. But it does seem that if you are a racist, you're probably a Republican. What is it about the Republican party that makes it so attractive to bigots? Racist bigots, sexist bigots, anti-gay bigots, religious bigots, all seem to be drawn to it like bugs to a street light.

Quote

1. according to some

Who are these "some"? Do you have a citation of someone actually claiming that, or is it that it's easier to convince yourself that the detractors are just stereotyping than to accept that the Republican party has a rather obvious bigotry problem?

Being a Republican doesn't make you a racist. Being a Democrat does not demonstrate that you are not a racist. Identifying with either label simply makes you a partisan.

This upcoming election is not an up or down vote on white supremacy. Though dog whistles have been and will continue to be blown, though efforts have been made to suppress voter turnout in communities of color in particular, race really is not what this election is about. Or at least it's not all this election is about. Honestly, I think even some of the racially coded stuff is attempting to manipulate racial resentments that are rooted in economic insecurity more than anything else.

Anyway, I think what the Republicans are saying, the messaging they are using, and most importantly, what they are doing with regard to voting rights is pretty despicable. And I do have to wonder if Republicans fully grasp how utterly toxic their party has become to black and brown people in particular. Mr. Blackwell, I'd be interested in your take on that

So yeah, being a Republican does not make you a racist. In a two party system, large coalitions must be built. And siding with either party means aligning yourself with that coalition. And therefore it's very likely that our leaders and our fellow partisans will say and do things we disapprove of.

There's certainly racist republicans and racist republicans who get elected. There's different kinds of bigotry out there from politicians in their party, but it doesn't necessarily apply to all. And are the people who vote them in racist too? No, not necessarily, because 1) people may not know or 2) they think out of their choices that person will do the best job...or they just refuse to vote democrat and feel they should support their own party.

I think non-radicals within the republican party should speak out against the radicals in their party, because clearly the radicals don't represent their voice. I think it should apply to democrats too, I mean Obama doesn't necessarily represent every kind of liberal. But it's partisan politics. I suspect there's racist democrats out there, they don't have the reputation of it. If your party does not represent you, then speak up![1]

And of course, there are 2 types of discrimination out there, positive discrimination and negative discrimination. One claim I see from repulican supporters at times is that democrats are racist due to positive discrimination, that Obama got a lot of votes because he was black and not because of his merits. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some truth to that. I'm sure there's a group of those who voted because they thought Obama was the man for the job and others because they wanted a black president, maybe because the US had never had one and it'd be seen as a step forward.

Whilst positive discrimination doesn't involve disgusting things like lynching or saying stupidly offensive things, it's by no means a good thing because you're still treating people differently, heck, it can even help provide fuel for those who negatively discriminate. I'd say we've got it here in the UK, people might prioritise in giving jobs to foreign workers and then that angers people looking for work who are native to the UK and their anger is directed at the workers. Hence you get this attitude of "damn poles are taking our jewbs".

To my mind, how you treat a person should be solely based on their faults and merits. Being black or Polish or a Muslim or gay or anything along those lines are not merits, but nor are they faults.

Anyway, I think what the Republicans are saying, the messaging they are using, and most importantly, what they are doing with regard to voting rights is pretty despicable. And I do have to wonder if Republicans fully grasp how utterly toxic their party has become to black and brown people in particular. Mr. Blackwell, I'd be interested in your take on that.

I am not 100% convinced that the Republican party is toxic to black and brown people in particular. If their policies are utterly toxic then I very seriously doubt that many of them fully grasp the implications.

Hell, I don't fully grasp all the implications. I understand some of their policies towards women's reproductive rights are particularly heinous but I don't understand how requiring positive identification to prove citizenship in order to vote is inherently racist. I can't grasp that.

I look at it as a means to not allow undocumented workers coming in from Mexico and other non citizens who do not qualify to vote. Since it would be flat out discrimination to ONLY require "Mexican looking" people to produce identification the only solution is to require a photo on your voter registration card. How is that specifically racist towards one's skin color? I have a friend who is British...I am not sure if he is actually a US citizen but if he isn't then he does not have the right to vote either.

If he went to vote I would hope they would ask for proof of his citizenship before allowing him to do so.

Hell, I don't fully grasp all the implications. I understand some of their policies towards women's reproductive rights are particularly heinous but I don't understand how requiring positive identification to prove citizenship in order to vote is inherently racist. I can't grasp that.

My opinion only:There are some things that get branded as racist that I dont necessarily think ARE inherently racist. Like rebuilding New Orleans. I do not think the city should have been rebuilt after Katrina. Not because I dont care about black people but because building a city below sea level just off sub-tropical waters that see a hurricane pass near at least once a summer seems like a bad idea that need not bee repeated.

However, something like a voter id.... which admittedly seems like an innocent enough requirement.... Particularly to someone who has at least modest income and has had a form of photo id for the last 14 years. However, many of the people who do NOT have a form of photo id do not because they do not have the money to drive, and do not have the money or inclination to get another form of photo id. Now one can connect the dots and know that IN GENERAL, blacks in the country have less money as a whole, and would be less likely to have id. Ergo you have a law that specifically targets a certain group (like a modern-day poll tax). While it may not SPECIFICALLY target blacks, it DOES specifically impact the poor (typically democratic voters).

When this is stated on camera

Quote

Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, a Republican who helped push the law through the Pennsylvania legislature this spring without a single Democratic vote, said he was pleased the law was upheld for future elections.

At a fundraiser in June, Turzai had touted it as a key achievement that would help the Romney camp this November, saying: "Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania - done."

(Reuters)

To me when someone is being that obvious about stacking the deck, something smells.

Logged

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution."

I voted "honey boo boo don't care", not having any idea what a "honey boo boo" is but liking how it sounds, because my answer is not there.

Don't look it up. You lose 10 IQ points for actually knowing what honey boo boo is. I lost 20 for watching an episode that my wife made me sit through, which wasn't good for me, because I don't have many points to lose. By the end of the show, I was dipping pork rinds in liquid cheese and shitting on myself without caring about the smell. Yes, it's that bad.

I'm so sorry to go off on a tangent, but I have to admit that I am really drawn to this show.

I don't know people like this. I know a lot of people with limited literacy. I know a lot of people with limited resources. I know a lot of people who have made irrational life choices. But I can't look away from this family.

The individuals in this family have a lot going against them. Everyone clearly has limited education, and their extraordinarily poor diets clearly have had an impact both on their health and their cognitive skills. But what they don't lack is self-confidence. And I'm never quite sure whether I admire their positive attitudes, or if I am horrified by their inability to accurately assess their circumstances.

They need money. They need money because they need to buy stuff for their 6/7 year old daughter to appear in beauty pageants. They need clothes and wigs and professionals to put on her make up. They believe she is going to be Miss America. They genuinely believe that this child will provide them with an opportunity to escape from their dismal existence. When they need money, they have lemonade stands, engage in extreme couponing, or when they REALLY need money, they go play BINGO with the erroneous expectation that they are going to win. I've read that they are being paid a fraction of what other families get paid to have the invasive cameras wandering around their homes and filming their personal lives. And I expect that they put everything they get paid into pageants. Or perhaps foolish things like a blow-up slide/pool for their daughter's birthday party.

They eat roadkill and dumpster diver for mattresses, but they spend thousands of dollars on clothes for their pageant queen. They don't seem to be aware of the existence of vegetables or fruits or grains or legumes. And they don't seem to notice that their pretty little pageant queen is well on her way to the gross obesity that plagues the women in the family.

The mom, who must be in her early/mid 30's (she was a teenager when she gave birth to her first child, and her teenage daughter just gave birth on the show) is so obese that she could not climb the ladder on a slide, and could not climb on a rock to pose for a family photo. She looks like she will probably not survive another decade or so. And she has passed on this lifestyle to her daughters.

The producers of the show have created a slapstick portrait of this family, with lots of focus on farting and burping. But all of that distracts from the reality of these people's lives.

Poverty, poor education, extremely poor nutrition, and extremely poor life choices (which have been informed by this poverty and lack of education and poor health), are a cycle that is clearly going to be passed on to the next generation, in spite of their brief fame.

Their story is an American tragedy. And all of us should be embarrassed that in such a wealthy nation, this horrible of cycle of poverty and ignorance can exist. These kids don't have a chance.

Poverty, poor education, extremely poor nutrition, and extremely poor life choices (which have been informed by this poverty and lack of education and poor health), are a cycle that is clearly going to be passed on to the next generation, in spite of their brief fame.

Stupid is as stupid does. If they can raise thousands of dollars to parade their little meal ticket around on stage they could raise thousands of dollars to educate and properly feed their progeny. It's not a lack of will for this family. That is the irony in this particular tragedy.

I don't watch the show or follow this family...do they receive any federal assistance? It doesn't sound like they do if they dumpster dive and eat roadkill.

Logged

When I criticize political parties or candidates, I am not criticizing you. If I criticize you, there will be no doubt in your mind as to what I am saying.

...many of the people who do NOT have a form of photo id do not because they do not have the money to drive, and do not have the money or inclination to get another form of photo id.

I had to show ID when we applied for food stamps. What happens if some poor person who cannot purchase an ID or is homeless wants to get food stamps? I ask because I honestly don't know the answer to that question. How do poor people prove who they are in order to receive the benefits of our social net if they don't have some sort of identification?

Quote

Now one can connect the dots and know that IN GENERAL, blacks in the country have less money as a whole, and would be less likely to have id. Ergo you have a law that specifically targets a certain group (like a modern-day poll tax). While it may not SPECIFICALLY target blacks, it DOES specifically impact the poor (typically democratic voters).

Statistically[1] there are more poor black people than white people but in pure numbers (which is what counts for the popular vote during elections) there are a greater number of poor white people than poor black people (Simply because there are more white people than black people.)

Could it not be argued that requiring a photo ID to vote would disenfranchise a greater number of poor white people than poor black people?

I still don't understand what it has to do with race.

Seems to me that a reasonable compromise would be to offer free voter ID cards

Quote

Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, a Republican who helped push the law through the Pennsylvania legislature this spring without a single Democratic vote, said he was pleased the law was upheld for future elections.

At a fundraiser in June, Turzai had touted it as a key achievement that would help the Romney camp this November, saying: "Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania - done."

(Reuters)

To me when someone is being that obvious about stacking the deck, something smells.[/quote]

I look at it as a means to not allow undocumented workers coming in from Mexico and other non citizens who do not qualify to vote. Since it would be flat out discrimination to ONLY require "Mexican looking" people to produce identification the only solution is to require a photo on your voter registration card. How is that specifically racist towards one's skin color? I have a friend who is British...I am not sure if he is actually a US citizen but if he isn't then he does not have the right to vote either.

I'm not sure you're understanding why people are objecting to voter ID laws. I've seen no evidence to suggest that these sorts of laws might encourage officials to ask only some types of people to show ID. And I've seen no one allege that this is what's wrong with them.

Here's where I'm coming from. This is a solution in search of a problem. In a nation with about 146 million voters, when people have attempted to analyze the alleged cases of voter fraud, there's only been something like 10 cases of in person voter fraud that have been documented. And your hypothetical non-eligible voter, if they were able to register to vote and cast a ballot, then mistakes in the system were already made that a voter ID law would not remedy (since you don't need to be a US citizen to get a driver's license). The same is true for predictable problems in the system like voter registration fraud.

While also relatively rare, when voter fraud happens it's almost certain to happen when people vote by mail. In the aforementioned analysis, they identified about 185 cases of absentee or mail-in ballot fraud. And there are ongoing criminal investigations of this sort of thing right now. Voter ID laws aren't going to stop this from happening. This isn't about protecting the integrity of our voting system.

See, here's the problem with all of this, in Pennsylvania, not surprisingly given the information I've tried to highlight, those defending the state's voter ID law in court have admitted that they cannot produce a single example of in person voter fraud in the state. Not one. Zero. There are, however, over 750,000 registered voters in that state that posess no photo ID. Again, this is a solution in search of a problem if we accept the rationale for these laws at face value. Why should people have to spend a chunk of their day in the DMV to prevent something that even proponents of the law concede that they can't prove even happens? And why would the state bother to ask this of them in the first place?

That's the clip you asked for. Now, why would he think that?

My guess would be that it's because a lot of people that tend to vote Democratic are people that don't tend to have photo ID. Polls consistently show that blacks, for example, plan to vote for Barack Obama and Democrats more broadly in...large numbers to say the least. Blacks are also more likely not to have a photo ID than the general population. 25 percent of blacks have no photo ID, compared to 11 percent of registered voters and 8 percent of white voters. In other words, these kinds of laws would have what's a disparate racial impact, which is why they've been rejected by the Justice Department in states that have to have their voting laws approved due to the Voting Rights Act and why state courts like Pennsylvania's challenged their law.

But as you noted, these laws would also impact young people, poor people, and the elderly. And, of course, a lot of these people vote for Republicans. Still, I think it's important to point out here that this seems to really only be on the agenda of Republican administrations. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I can't think of another example.) And I somehow doubt that they would do this if they thought that it would hurt electorally. But that might have something to do with the fact that Republicans are more likely to vote by mail than Democrats. Call me a cynic.

So to get back to your confusion about my reaction to these laws, or why I would mention them in a conversation about the perceived racism of the Grand Old Party.

but I don't understand how requiring positive identification to prove citizenship in order to vote is inherently racist. I can't grasp that.

It's no more racist to ask me to show a photo ID to vote than it is to ask me to verify my address. There's nothing about the notion that we should have voter ID cards that is racist. And I don't think I'd have the same issue with a well-designed program that was given enough time to take effect for voters to understand it and comply (though I'd still wonder what the point was.) However, laws of the sort that are being enacted by Republican-controlled states all over the country are designed in such a way that they will put up road blocks that will make voting harder for people who don't have IDs and make it impossible for some people, who are unable to get ID in the first place.

I don't think that this necessarily reflects a sense of racial animosity. I think at the end of the day, most of what political parties do is about winning. Still, it's hard not to take offense when it's your neighborhoods that are singled out as somehow rampant with voter fraud, that new laws need to be put on the books, that groups like True the Vote must swoop into our polling places to slow already long lines in order to ensure that we don't do something that they have no evidence of us actually doing. And it's hard not to take offense especially in light of the history of this country, where ostensibly color blind policies like poll taxes, literacy tests and grandfather clauses were used to prevent us from voting.

But maybe I'm reading too much into it. Maybe the GOP really is super concerned about maintaining the integrity of the vote and not in any way, shape or form attempting to suppress the turnout of parts of the electorate. They just want a good, clean fight you guys. Only Allah knows.

I think there is a difference between voter fraud and election fraud. Voter fraud, from what I understand, is an individual crime. That is, it is done at the voter leve. Like, when a voter does something to illegally cast a ballot. This is what the repubs have created a faux panic over. All them illegals and ne'er do wells voting more than once. But that is a faith based assertion, since, as has been pointed out, they cannot find more than a few score cases in the whole country of this happening, and when they do, the "perp" ofted never actually voted.

Election fraud is systemic or done at a higher level. Ballots are lost, machine tallies are tampered with, machines strangely cast votes for candidates other than what the voter selected, not enough machines in partisan districts, etc. This is what Nick is talking about.

This is also something the repubs generally don't apparently care about. At least, I've not heard them get on this like they do voter ID. I'm not going to say it is because they do these things. But it is not a stretch to think they have done these things given the many... irregularities in recent years.

Are all Republicans racist? No. Though, I do feel they advocate a racial ideology.

What party advocates for there to be a "wall" erected between Mexico and the United States. Is it advocated primarily to keep illegals out of the country, or is it more based on race? Does anyone advocate a "wall" between the US and Canada?

What party advocates ID for voting more so than others? Is it based on voter fraud? Or to keep certain people from voting?

What party advocates for illegal immigrants (and those born here from such immigrants) for having little to no rights, at all?

What party advocates redistricting more so than other parties? Is it based on population or to prevent a type of people to not have such avoicein certain election cycles?

What party is mainly one race (at a high percentage) than any other race?

Why has there been such a recent surge in voter ID legislation around the country?

This report by NYU's Brennan Center for Justice cites primarily big Republican gains in the 2010 midterms which turned voter ID laws into a "major legislative priority." Aside from Rhode Island, all voter ID legislation has been introduced by Republican-majority legislatures.

To what end?

News21 also has this report on the close affiliation between the bills’ sponsors and the conservative nonprofit group, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).Hmmmm.

Republican figures have championed such laws. For instance, Mike Turzai, majority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, recently praised the state's legislative accomplishments at a Republican State Committee meeting last month. "Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done," he said.

A spokesman for Turzai, Steve Miskin, told ProPublica that Turzai was "mischaracterized" by the press. "For the first time in many years, you're going to have a relatively level playing field in the presidential elections" as the result of these new laws," Miskin said. "With all things equal, a Republican presidential nominee in Pennsylvania has a chance."

There are few things as ludicrous as the idea that people in the country illegally are trying to vote. Where did this idea come from? Where is it that there are so many people voting that some must not be citizens? We have the lowest election turnout in the western world. Lots of citizens can't be bothered to vote. But people who are hiding in this country illegally are going to line up in some official location to sign something fraudulent and risk getting fined and arrested? Whatever for?

The people I have known who fell out of immigration compliance were so terrified of being arrested and deported that they would not enter any building with a US flag out front.[1]Not even the post office. They work off the books, sleep on couches and floors, and are exploited by everyone. No, they were not collecting welfare or food stamps or any other government assistance. They would not even apply for benefits that they might have been entitled to, because they did not want to come to the attention of the authorities. They went to food banks where they felt safe. Some are even afraid get library cards or to enroll their kids in school, which is their legal right. They always drive the exact speed limit.

Now why would such people show up at an official location to try to break the law, impersonate a citizen and vote? These are people who go hungry rather than go into any government office! I suspect that some people see any non-white foreign people from Somalia or Central America and automatically assume they are illegal. Some are not citizens yet and cannot vote. But they are legally here, either as refugees or as immigrants. The illegal people rarely show up in government offices. Believe me.

I agree completely. So let's repeal Citizen's United and keep Israel, China and Saudi Arabia from buying our politicians. That's far more important than voter id, but the Republicans are not worried too much about it. For a few million bucks a foreign country (or individual) can form a Super PAC and buy an entire state legislature now. And nobody can trace the money. 'Cause corporations are people, my friend. Thank you, Supreme Court, business interests and conservatives.

How can Republican voters go on believing that the latest wave of voter ID laws is about fraud and that it’s the opposition to the laws that’s being partisan?

To help frustrated non-Republicans, I offer up my own experience as a case study. I was a Republican for most of my life, and during those years I had no doubt that such laws were indeed truly about fraud. Please join me on a tour of my old outlook on voter ID laws and what caused it to change.

Even though the area I live in is highly Republican (though it went to Obama in 2008), the laws here in redistricting, and ID (though ID has been around for as long as I can remember), and other aspects are to keep it Republican. No other reason. I am sure in some areas it's about fraud but where I live, I just don't see it.

How can Republican voters go on believing that the latest wave of voter ID laws is about fraud and that it’s the opposition to the laws that’s being partisan?

To help frustrated non-Republicans, I offer up my own experience as a case study. I was a Republican for most of my life, and during those years I had no doubt that such laws were indeed truly about fraud. Please join me on a tour of my old outlook on voter ID laws and what caused it to change.

...continued

An excellent article. I am still surprised that there are people who honestly don't know how marginalized poor people are, and how easy it is to be black, poor and SOL in the USA.

My grandmother, born in the 1890's, was a working class black lady who never had a photo ID in her life. She never drove a car, never had a credit card. I don't think she even had a birth certificate, either, since like most poor people back then, she was born at home. Nobody was recording much about black babies in the segregated rural south in those days.

She worked informally as a maid for white people all her life. She was paid in cash and used money orders to pay her bills. But she always voted during the years I knew her, and received her social security and medicare benefits. She never had to prove her citizenship once--there is no way she could have done so. If she was alive today and living in one of those states with the new laws, she would be effectively disenfranchised. And I would be hella pissed.

The piece by Jeremiah is so well-done. He was so shocked to find out that many poor black people don't even have the proper ID's to open a simple bank account, for reasons related to historical racism. Even if the actual voter ID card is free, there is the opportunity cost of taking off work and getting one during the hours and days the office is open. And the documents you need to obtain the ID, like official birth certificates and naturalization documents are pretty pricey and not easily obtained.

Each little additional barrier may not seem like much by itself. But all the little barriers add up. Each barrier to easy voting means that a few more people are not going to pursue the hassle. And knocking off a few thousand otherwise eligible voters here and there can make a difference in a close election. So, it is not enough to have so few voting machines in the black neighborhoods that people are forced to wait in line for hours. It is not enough to remove convicted felons and all people with names similar to the felon's from the voting rolls.

Pass a law that requires people to spend time and money they don't have to get an ID that they will only use once every four years--to prevent fraud that does not exist. (The right-wing lobbying group ALEC is behind a lot of these laws....google it.)

Voter registration should be automatic when a person turns 18 or becomes a citizen. It should not be a different byzantine procedure in each state, with stupid exclusionary rules about people in jail. You should not have to face down a group of ignorant thugs to get into the polling place. You should not have to pass an English test or an intelligence test or any other kind of test.

You should get an official card in the mail from the government that can be used as a general multi-purpose ID card. Every citizen should be able to vote with minimal hassle. Voting rights should be like gun rights-- let the government prove why I should not vote. Otherwise, I can vote.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

You might want to rethink that. Unless you are buying a gun from a private individual, I.D. and a federal background check are required. The background check is not free and the person buying the gun usually pays for the background check. It can take up to three days for approval to purchase a firearem.

It is different from state to state.

Is that really how you want voting to be?

Logged

When I criticize political parties or candidates, I am not criticizing you. If I criticize you, there will be no doubt in your mind as to what I am saying.

You might want to rethink that. Unless you are buying a gun from a private individual, I.D. and a federal background check are required. The background check is not free and the person buying the gun usually pays for the background check. It can take up to three days for approval to purchase a firearem.

It is different from state to state.

Is that really how you want voting to be?

I am not saying the two are-- or should-- be exactly the same. Sigh. [Way to miss the point, Mr. B.]

My point is that voting is far more important and basic a right than owning a firearm. Most Americans will never have need of a firearm, even though they have the right to own one. But every single American is affected by the laws and should, in a democracy, be able to choose the representatives who make and execute those laws. Without undue pointless hassle-- barriers created by lobbyists who have researched the issues and thus know exactly who will be disenfranchised and why.

My US students know about one constitutional amendment-- the second.[1]They are sketchy on the first amendment, don't know who can vote and aren't sure about whether non-citizens have any rights at all in the US. I wish so-called conservatives put as much emphasis on general civics education and securing the right to vote as they do on the second amendment and the right to bear arms.

My foreign students are generally appalled that an untrained non-military person can walk into the pawn shop one block from the college and purchase a firearm for personal use. Even if you have to pay a bunch of money and wait three days to pick it up.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?